"Scientists spent the better part of a decade trying to perfect Neothane tires, but they couldn't get past the experimental stage.
For one thing, the translucent tires had poor traction on wet pavement. They began to lose stability around 65 mph. They began to melt under heavy braking.
On top of everything else, they cost more than regular tires.
Even if engineers had solved all of those problems, the glowing lights probably would have been too much of a distraction for night driving. Generally speaking, it's unwise to hypnotize other motorists."
Everybody knows it's always the victim's fault, not the person operating the two ton machinery at a high rate of speed, spewing toxic gases into the atmosphere.
My bet is that the federal government sets one set of standards for emissions for states that don't follow California emissions, while California emission states will follow different requirements.
I don't think this the end of the world for automakers. It wasn't that long ago that certain cars had California emissions equipment while other states did not it. Positive crankcase valves were required in California and New York several years before other states. CARB requirements in 1990s meant certain engines couldn't be sold in California and other emissions states like New York. People in those states still could buy a wide variety of better emission controlled cars. Automakers can sell their more profitable, larger engine vehicles in non-emission states, while their stronger emission controlled vehicles in California, New York and the dozen of other states that California emissions.
This actually makes quite a bit of sense, as most of the non-emission standard states have a lesser pollution problem, especially when it comes to things like smog. Many of the more rural states have lower populations, so their climate impact of having more polluting vehicles in non-California emission states will be lower compared to the California emission states.
"Just about every profession has an interest group in Washington that lobbies for more government spending that will benefit its own people. The ASCE is probably more honorable than most, and to its credit, it advocates prudent spending based on rigorous analysis rather than the gimme-gimme grab bag some groups lobby for. But the well-meaning engineers are also making a legitimate problem sound worse than it is, which is very Trumpian and therefore timely—but not a very good reflection of how real Americans get to work, go shopping or visit their relatives."